Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

erpass query for Cradle Mountain National Park - maybe > try > it o your local parks > > https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1fus > > Cheers - Phil > > -Original Message- > From: fors...@ozonline.com.au > Sent: Thursday, 27 January 2022 10:22 PM > To: Phil Wyatt >

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 17:56, Phil Wyatt wrote: > Just a quick thing I noticed – the main tagging page says not to use do > not use highway =footway > and the > preference is highway

Re: [talk-au] Am I using addr:unit correctly?

Your use of addr:unit looks correct here, I don't believe it needs to be subdivisions of a single building. You could have villa style townhouses where each dwelling is a separate building on a single site, where each building has it's own addr:unit and they all share the same addr:housenumber.

Re: [talk-au] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking tracks/paths]

On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 at 10:05, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 at 19:39, Andrew Harvey > wrote: > >> >> If I were to design the ideal tag for Australia, it would be something >> like: >> >> technicality=0-3 >> >> 0. Well for

Re: [talk-au] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking tracks/paths]

On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 at 21:34, Tom Brennan wrote: > > If you have better ideas the beauty of OSM is you can tag both, so > > keep using sac_scale for it's wide support but have a new tag better > > suited to Australia which data consumers can start opting into. > It's probably easier, if less

[talk-au] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking tracks/paths]

On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 at 18:32, Tom Brennan wrote: > On a related (track-y), but slightly tangential note... > > Is there any consensus on the use of sac_scale as the measure for trail > difficulty in an Australian context? > > Personally, I hate the idea, because: > - Australia has little in the

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 at 19:22, Little Maps wrote: > Hi Andrew, thanks for compiling the walking tracks page, it’s a great > resource. It would be good to extend this later on to have separate pages > for walking tracks, vehicle tracks and MTB paths, since these issues keep > coming up on the

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 at 16:08, wrote: > “off-track” here implies trail_visibility=no. > > > > If it’s NOT visible on the ground. And it’s NOT part of any signed route. > Then it doesn’t meet the verifiability criteria and shouldn’t be mapped. > Exactly, I've just added the term bush-bashing to

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 at 12:59, Tom Brennan wrote: > I was somewhat bemused by the comment: > "As Ranger of Macquarie Pass National Park (New South Wales, Australia) > I am writing to advise that these tracks either do not exist or are > illegal tracks, which have been closed based on a risk

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 at 00:11, Josh Marshall wrote: > There were also some trails earlier in my ride that were closed, and in > the interest of not-self-incriminating I would certainly not admit to > attempting to traverse them or getting somewhat lost and trekking through > swamp in the

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 at 13:48, Dian Ågesson wrote: > Hi all, > > When this issue was last raised on the mailing list, I suggested the > following tagging schema. > >- highway=rehabilitation >- access=no >- informal=yes >- rehabilitation:highway=path >- source:access=parks

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

On Mon, 24 Jan 2022 at 17:26, Phil Wyatt wrote: > Hi Folks, > > I agree that a good discussion is useful but at the same time the OSM > community needs to understand what a hassle it can be to have these tracks > in OSM and having no, or little, control on how any other app/web interface > may

Re: [talk-au] Undiscussed, undocumented mass edit across all of Australia.

/413070382636072960/471231032645910529/931056454230745158. Happy to continue the community discussion on the merits of the change. on behalf of the DWG, Andrew Harvey On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 at 17:53, wrote: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/116091398 > > To quote my changeset comment: > > T

Re: [talk-au] New blogs on unsealed roads in Victoria

Neat, thanks for sharing. On Wed, 12 Jan 2022 at 15:59, Little Maps wrote: > Hi folks, for everyone interested in OpenStreetMap's fantastic road data… > I've just posted a series of blogs about unsealed roads in Victoria. I've > pitched it at cyclists rather than mappers to widen the audience,

Re: [talk-au] US Trails Working Group

On Sun, 9 Jan 2022 at 13:39, Tom Brennan wrote: > This is certainly a problem, and having walked in Utah, there are > certainly some specific problems with walking off track there. However, > it seems that land managers are looking at the threat without seeing the > opportunity. > > Yes,

Re: [talk-au] boundary=aboriginal_lands ( Was Re: admin_level, suburbs and rendering; should the order be updated?)

If this is not disputed, it would be nice to update https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Australia.E2.80.99s_First_People with this information otherwise it'll get lost over time in the archives here. On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 at 19:58, Andrew Davidson wrote: > On

Re: [talk-au] admin_level, suburbs and rendering; should the order be updated?

On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 at 20:26, Andrew Davidson wrote: > > I checked via the overpass wizard query "admin_level=8 in AU" and there > > are no results, so no australia post borders are mapped that way, and > > I'm not aware of any. > > I think that was an accident of history. boundary=postal_code

Re: [talk-au] admin_level, suburbs and rendering; should the order be updated?

On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 at 09:29, Dian Ågesson wrote: > Suburbs and Localities in Australia are all using admin_level=10 > , > and some changes in early 2020 to the default map rendering (

Re: [talk-au] Enriching OpenStreetMap with open data

On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 at 15:27, John Luan wrote: > And we will have another follow up session after we finish the bulk > import, and we will talk about our bulk import experience. > I wasn't able to join the whole talk, but if you're planning on doing a bulk import then please make sure you check

Re: [talk-au] Importing 200 emergency markers?

That sounds fine to me, this email consulting with the community, informing of your plan and what steps you've taken is enough in my opinion. I would ask if you could share more information about the permission you obtained? So long as you have sufficient rights to submit the data under the OSM

Re: [talk-au] Lots of identical changesets for toll roads (possibly incorrect).

I haven't looked at their other changesets, but I've reverted this one to remove the toll=yes on the untolled section. On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 at 11:40, Jake Coppinger wrote: > Hello, > > I noticed I was getting bad OSM car directions which avoided General > Holmes Dr (the east/west road under

Re: [talk-au] Unconnected ways

On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 at 11:54, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > Same problem where a bushwalking route uses a beach. I was told IIRC it > is ok to use highway=path with trail_visibility=no. > Agreed, and while I still don't think it's perfect, it's probably the best compromise at the

[talk-au] Use of macrons in name:en

There is a good discussion going on at talk-nz about use of macrons and names https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-nz/2021/thread.html#318 There was talk about if macrons should appear in the English name (name:en), which got me checking Uluṟu and Kata Tjuṯa. So should that be tagged

Re: [talk-au] Use of pedestrian streets to imply route hierarchy

Based on the wiki I understand highway=pedestrian to be for roads that pedestrians freely walk on and some vehicles can drive on, but mostly vehicles don't drive on them because there are too many pedestrians or restrictions limit vehicle access. It's a common misstagging to use it as a more

Re: [talk-au] Tagging non-govt (road) ways

Those suggestions look fine to me. For flags it means maps can render the flag graphic, some is a bit redundant but not wrong. On Wed, 17 Nov 2021 at 10:16, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > > > On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 at 17:01, Andrew Hughes wrote: > >> >> I can see us using wikidata for other

Re: [talk-au] Tagging non-govt (road) ways

n, > Andrew > > > On Fri, 12 Nov 2021 at 07:00, Andrew Harvey > wrote: > >> My opinion is it's better to keep the values high level as listed at >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:operator:type. >> >> I'd opt to instead use operator:wikidata=* to spe

Re: [talk-au] Splitting Ways for small roundabout traffic islands

I'm against splitting the way into two diverging ways. The usual argument for splitting due to physical separation makes sense for longer separations as it affects routing which doesn't apply here. Splitting makes the data more complicated than it needs to be, and doesn't add more value or

Re: [talk-au] Proposed features/Snow chains

highway=chain_up_area sounds fine, while these places close/open depending on conditions, many are signposted as chain bays and they don't move, so can be surveyed and added. I think snow_chains:conditional=required @ ... is very useful to show roads which you may be expected to carry and use

Re: [talk-au] Tagging non-govt (road) ways

> > operator:type:subtype= > > state > lga > airport > ... > > > Thanks for all the answers so far! > > > On Wed, 10 Nov 2021, 9:36 pm Warin, <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> On 9/11/21 9:57 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote: >> >>

Re: [talk-au] Tagging non-govt (road) ways

We have a tag for this http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:operator:type On Tue, 9 Nov 2021 at 17:31, Andrew Hughes wrote: > Hi All, > > I was wondering how I could tag ways that would indicate that they are > belonging to "non-government" - aka these are private assets and do not > belong

Re: [talk-au] Vic State Forest Boundary Files

Ian, yes templates are at https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Waiver_and_Permission_Templates which includes a generic cover letter. It would be a good idea to reference the existing Vicmap specific waiver we have and link to

Re: [talk-au] Vic State Forest Boundary Files

I think it'll be much easier to request a waiver for a wider set of Victorian open data. DELWP has been very accommodating and kindly granted us a waiver for Vicmap, so I can't see there being a problem with other CC BY data like

Re: [talk-au] Lifeguards & "Swim Between the Flags"

Isn't it always the case though that patrolled beaches will have flags and that is the area patrolled? My point is then what's the difference between `lifeguard=yes` and `lifeguard=yes @ flagged_area / red_and_yellow_flags`, to me they mean the same thing. On Wed, 20 Oct 2021 at 18:06, Graeme

Re: [talk-au] Aust. Minutely Replication Not Updating > 24hrs

That service is run by OpenStreetMap France, they have technical contact details at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/France/OSM-FR/Groupes_de_travail/Technique and GitHub tickets at https://github.com/osm-fr/infrastructure/issues All their replication feeds have the same issue

Re: [talk-au] Lifeguards & "Swim Between the Flags"

I'm with Ben, I feel it's sufficient to tag on the beach. Isn't it always the case in Australia that there will be flags if patrolled and that you should swim between the flags? For long beaches we may already split the feature into different named beaches, so you could do the same if only part

Re: [talk-au] Emergency markers licence?

I don't think that's a compatible source, for starters that page lists it as Creative Commons Non-Commercial. On Wed, 20 Oct 2021 at 10:22, wrote: > Hi > > I want to put the emergency marker MOR507 where I think it belongs > > MOR507 node=429407299 > > not London Bridge (in either of its two

Re: [talk-au] Source material.

On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 at 20:11, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > It does not have 'State Forests' ... unfortunately. > Ah I confused "State Park" with "State Forest". ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org

Re: [talk-au] Source material.

On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 at 13:30, Little Maps wrote: > By contrast, the list of Vicmap datasets on the department’s VicMap > catalog includes 4 extra datasets as part of Vicmap, namely (1) VicMap > Imagery, (2) Vicmap Index (contains boundary and coastline data), (3) > Vicmap Lite and (4) Vicmap

Re: [talk-au] Source material.

That would be great Ian. If you find that some useful datasets aren't covered under the Vicmap CC BY waiver, but are CC BY licensed then we can request an updated waiver to cover them. Andrew Parker, it looks like State Parks for VIC are included in CAPAD

Re: [talk-au] Source material.

Exactly as Ian's said. We have permission to use Vicmap CC BY data, you can search on https://www.data.vic.gov.au/. It looks like a few state forest and public land data is available. On Mon, 18 Oct 2021, 12:08 pm Little Maps, wrote: > Hi all, can I offer a different spin on this - interested

Re: [talk-au] Path discussion tagging guidelines

On Wed, 13 Oct 2021 at 20:03, wrote: > The only other difference was a general ambivalence on how shared paths > are tagged. The wiki says highway=cycleway & foot=designated, people here > were also happy with highway=footway & bicycle=designated. Two sides of the > same coin I guess, and

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

I guess there would be nearly 0% chance that you would be able to cleanly revert without dealing with conflicts. It can get complicated when conflicts are detected by the JOSM reverter, you need to both know about the OSM data model well (nodes, ways, relations, tags), know about the data you're

[talk-au] Monitoring admin boundaries Was: Re: Mapping tree cover

On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 19:03, Brendan Barnes wrote: > Regarding administrative boundaries, developers, is it possible for the > ones that were imported many years ago to be re-validated somehow? Some > form of scheduled script to check that the OSM data still matches the > official open source

Re: [talk-au] Basic question

On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 11:53, cleary wrote: > > Good mapping practice is to keep administrative boundaries such as state > parks, conservation areas, suburbs etc separate from natural features such > as water, waterways, woods etc. While they sometimes approximate, they > rarely coincide

Re: [talk-au] Russian Town Names?

There general rule in OSM is only tag if the place does have a common name in that language, and not tag transliteration. If you really want to add transliterations this can be done via Wikidata which can be linked to OSM. Some maps like Mapbox will then use the Wikidata linked transliterations

Re: [talk-au] Mapping tree cover

On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 09:22, EON4wd wrote: > Question, How can I identify this person so that I can contact them to be > able to find out what they are thinking? > If you're using the default iD editor, select a feature, then in the bottom left there is a link to view on OSM, which shows in the

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

On Mon, 4 Oct 2021 at 23:48, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au < talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > Hi Andrew and list, > > How do we go about formalising these decisions? Is there a vote process, > or does someone take it upon themselves to document in the wiki any > consensus we reach on this list? >

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

With my DWG hat on, to summarise it looks like Graeme, Tony, Thorsten, Kim all advocate for not blanket tagging bicycle=no to every normal footpath (for the record I also support this, an explicit bicycle=no can still be tagged where signage is indicating such). Matthew has pointed out cases where

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

On Mon, 4 Oct 2021 at 18:18, Sebastian Azagra Flores via Talk-au < talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > The question is when is a foothpath with bicycles=yes considered a shared > path? > Should a shared paths be used over footpath=yes ? > >From my NSW perspective, shared paths are always tagged

Re: [talk-au] Suspicious amount of removed bicycle tags

Bit more discussion going on at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/111889860, welcome to the list HighRouleur. These updates are important as a lot of the software and apps that cyclist > use for course routing takes the shortest or fastest routes which could > include illegal paths such as

Re: [talk-au] Would Nippers be called Cadet Lifesavers?

On Mon, 27 Sept 2021 at 12:49, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > You would probably have seen that I recently successfully put through a > proposal to map the location of various cadet groups: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:club%3Dcadet > (& thank you to those who supported it!) > >

Re: [talk-au] Tagging yellow buoys

I can't help much with tagging, but wanted to say good to see someone else interested in sea mapping, I mapped a small bit of the Georges River in Sydney via kayak many years ago. On Tue, 28 Sept 2021 at 10:39, Ben Kelley wrote: > Hi. > > I'm slowly mapping more and more buoys in my area. The

Re: [talk-au] Shared driveways

Thanks to Phil for pointing out to me it's "pipestem" not "pipestream". On Thu, 23 Sept 2021 at 12:34, Alex Sims wrote: > Hi, > > I hadn't seen the "pipestream" before, and it does look to have some > utility. > > I'd much prefer that (legally) public roads be > highway=residential/unclassified

Re: [talk-au] Suspicious amount of removed bicycle tags

On Wed, 22 Sept 2021 at 22:02, wrote: > I have looked back at months of changesets by this user. Nearly all > involve retagging which is at best arguable and at worst wrong. It > appears to be largely done from satellite images and not survey. > > The largest category is changes of paths,

Re: [talk-au] Suspicious amount of removed bicycle tags

On Wed, 22 Sept 2021 at 23:27, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au < talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > Likewise with highway=cycleway. In Victoria this means that both > pedestrians and bikes are allowed. Explicitly tagging foot=yes and > bicycle=yes adds unnecessary noise. > Victoria has some

Re: [talk-au] Shared driveways

driveway=pipestream sounds good. It's got more usage than service=pipestream. It's nice to have a way to distinguish these from non-shared driveways. I've never heard the term before either, must be american, but that's fine, many of the existing key values are UK terms and don't apply globally,

Re: [talk-au] Tagging hiking path difficulty - Australian Walking Track Grading System (AWTGS)

If it's signposted or we have compatible data for officially assigned classifications you use a new tag like awtgs=1-5. It would be a good idea to document this tag if used on the wiki so that others can understand how to apply it and use it. We would need to decide if it should only be tagged

Re: [talk-au] Melbourne Intersections with duplicate ways and turn lanes

On Wed, 15 Sept 2021 at 09:57, wrote: > Thanks Andrew, > > I’ve reached out to the user on a changeset, and will hopefully have a > good conversation about it. > There's a good chance they won't respond, but best to still give them the chance, if you don't hear back and there's no further

Re: [talk-au] Breaking a beach?

It's a tricky one, and I would say there is no perfect solution here. Going by the one feature, one OSM element guide https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element you can rightly consider a single natural=beach for the whole length, but simultaneously a different named beach

Re: [talk-au] Melbourne Intersections with duplicate ways and turn lanes

gt; > > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/82695023#map=14/-37.9878/145.0739=N > > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/109871984#map=15/-38.1460/145.1279=N > > > Diacritic > > On 2021-09-13 06:57, Andrew Harvey wrote: > > Do you have a link to a chang

Re: [talk-au] Melbourne Intersections with duplicate ways and turn lanes

Do you have a link to a changeset of one you worked on? I haven't been able to find an example of where it was an issue, but generally the rule of thumb is only using separate ways when they are physically separated, so sometimes you're splitting into two parallel ways for either direction, but

Re: [talk-au] Import vs filtering query

I also wouldn't consider this an import, because you're just using the data to filter down potential issues which you then cross reference with other sources. On Sat, 4 Sept 2021 at 20:55, Little Maps wrote: > Hi all, my understanding is that the process described below is a big > filtering

Re: [talk-au] Tracks flagged as missing from government data

On Mon, 23 Aug 2021, at 5:40 PM, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au wrote: >> I've tried to get StreetComplete to ask about access but it was rejected >> https://github.com/streetcomplete/StreetComplete/issues/2930 > note that it was rejected because > 1) access is at least sometimes unsigned and not

Re: [talk-au] Tracks flagged as missing from government data

On Sun, 22 Aug 2021, at 5:39 PM, Little Maps wrote: > Andrew, thanks for the super fast reply, and for the overpass query which > I'll cut and paste from! A few thoughts… > > AH: 1.98% of tracks have public vehicle access and 8.7% of tracks have no > public vehicle access (of all tracks). So

Re: [talk-au] Tracks flagged as missing from government data

One more minor point about my stats, this doesn't count tracks pretty much all of the track is inaccessible for routing because the access tags are set on a gate at the start of the track. I know myself and other mappers will sometimes forget or not bother (which I'll try to correct now) to set

Re: [talk-au] Tracks flagged as missing from government data

On Sun, 22 Aug 2021, at 12:08 PM, Little Maps wrote: > Joe, when you talk about reaching consensus, I assume you mean consensus > among the Australian osm community, not the global osm community. Is that > right? The highway=track wiki states: "highway=track does not imply any > particular

Re: [talk-au] Tracks flagged as missing from government data

TL;DR; 1. no access tags don't mean access=yes (public) it just means access hasn't been set. 2. access=unknown is probably better than access=private + fixme:access=actually unknown access but I don't want routers to use this for now On Thu, 19 Aug 2021, at 9:58 PM, Joseph Guillaume wrote: >

Re: [talk-au] Tracks flagged as missing from government data

On Thu, 19 Aug 2021, at 4:07 PM, Kevin Pye wrote: > The Vicmap TR_ROAD table has a column "restrictions", in which a value '4' > indicates that the road is private. In the latest version of the data, which > was released only in the last couple of weeks, there are 158,466 roads with > that

Re: [talk-au] Tracks flagged as missing from government data

On Wed, 18 Aug 2021, at 4:40 PM, Little Maps wrote: > Andrew, the 1:25,000 Vic gov topo mps show tracks/driveways on private > properties in a different colour to those on public land and the map > legend clearly distinguish the two. So hopefully there is a > public/private field in the dataset

Re: [talk-au] Tracks flagged as missing from government data

Thanks for the feedback, On Mon, 16 Aug 2021, at 7:03 PM, Little Maps wrote: > Thanks for a great series of projects Andrew. One query… is there an error in > the Victorian all tracks challenge? It includes nearly 250,000 tracks to be > reviewed and potentially added to OSM. By contrast,

Re: [talk-au] highway=service

> > And this one definitely should be inverted: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/-33.85421/151.06761 Agreed. Surprise no one fixed this already, I've done so now. On Sun, 15 Aug 2021 at 19:45, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au < talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > Are you allowed as a

[talk-au] Tracks flagged as missing from government data

Collaborating with the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator (NHVR), I've set up MapRoulette challenges which identify tracks (highway=track) which appear in government datasets but are missing in OSM. The code to produce these challenges and the documentation of source data and waivers is at

Re: [talk-au] highway=service

On Sat, 14 Aug 2021 at 09:12, Tom Brennan wrote: > Like my previous post on sidewalks, this one is also from walking and > cycling all of the streets of my LGA (Willoughby). The other area where > tagging seems to me to be a bit messy is: > > highway=service > > This messiness may be more of a

Re: [talk-au] Sidewalks in Australia

On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 at 19:09, Benjamin Ceravolo wrote: > Why not sidewalk:both=separate? > Yeah if both sides are the same, then that's better. PS in case someone hasn't found it yet, JOSM has a map style called "Sidewalks and footways (with knobs on)" which helps visualising when editing.

Re: [talk-au] Sidewalks in Australia

On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 at 13:00, Tom Brennan wrote: > I've been using the current lockdown to walk and cycle all of the > streets of my LGA (Willoughby), and I've been checking back to OSM to > see if there's anything needing updating. For the most part it's just > minor edits here and there. >

Re: [talk-au] Can anyone make sense of this?

Some of them like https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13031072 where the no-u-turn restriction is on the same way don't make sense, and it's fair to ask for further information about why it was added, and if that's not provided then I think it's fine to remove. I admit that while I'd much

Re: [talk-au] The Paradox of Postcodes (Was Re: Victorian Vicmap Address Import Proposal - Suburb and Postcode discussion)

On Thu, 17 Jun 2021, at 6:08 PM, Adam Horan wrote: > > The ABS have an interesting factsheet on postcodes and their own 'Postal > Area' interpretation (POA). > https://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/censushome.nsf/home/factsheetspoa > It starts with this statement: > *"A postcode is a four digit

Re: [talk-au] Victorian Vicmap Address Import Proposal

On Sun, 13 Jun 2021, at 12:24 PM, Sebastian S. wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > Have you considered adding a > ref:{Vic map reference}={Vic map ID} > Tag to the imported data points? > > Or do you consider a ref tag or source tag an issue for users? I decided against a reference, see

Re: [talk-au] Victorian Vicmap Address Import Proposal

On Sun, 13 Jun 2021, at 12:21 PM, Sebastian S. wrote: > Thanks Andrew for this great proactive communication. Please keep at it. > > With regards to the suburb etc tags I must say I was swayed for some time. > However I still feel that including the full address has more benefits for > the

Re: [talk-au] Street Lamps

Good point, we only have the waiver for ACTmapi data not all data.act.gov.au On Sat, 12 Jun 2021, 7:42 pm , wrote: > At first glance, and without digging any deeper myself, that dataset seems > to be licensed under CC BY 4.0. Is it covered under any waiver we already > have? > > > >

Re: [talk-au] Street Lamps

See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines For starters I'd like to see how you're mapping into the OSM tag schema, how you plan to deal with conflicts (if any are already mapped in the ACT). On Sat, 12 Jun 2021, 10:03 am Andrew Munday, wrote: > Hello everyone. I'm not sure

Re: [talk-au] Victorian Vicmap Address Import Proposal

On Tue, 8 Jun 2021, at 7:33 PM, Ewen Hill wrote: > Andrew, > Thank you for both your initial work and the communication as well as the > listening. Can I congratulate you on the lib/toOSM.js for the capitalisation > and duplication processing. Very detailed > > A few numpty questions after

Re: [talk-au] Victorian Vicmap Address Import Proposal

On Wed, 9 Jun 2021, at 5:36 PM, Benjamin Ceravolo wrote: > How is address going to be 'placed' onto the map, I assume a node? > > My primary question is where is the node going to be placed? > > Will it be placed in the centre of the property/parcel? If so, they will be > fine in denser areas

Re: [talk-au] Victorian Vicmap Address Import Proposal

To sum up the contentious issue of suburb, postcode, state tags, - Phil, Daniel and Seb would prefer the suburb and postcode on each address object. - Andrew Davidson and cleary would prefer we not include suburb and postcode on each address object and instead require data consumers to derive

Re: [talk-au] Victorian Vicmap Address Import Proposal

On Thu, 27 May 2021, at 8:39 PM, Andrew Davidson wrote: > On 25/5/21 4:41 pm, Daniel O'Connor wrote: > > I'd make a polite argument there is still value in at least the suburb, > > possibly postcode being still provided.  When exporting data via > > overpass as CSV; it's not currently easy or

Re: [talk-au] Victorian Vicmap Address Import Proposal

On Tue, 25 May 2021, at 4:41 PM, Daniel O'Connor wrote: > I'd make a polite argument there is still value in at least the suburb, > possibly postcode being still provided. When exporting data via overpass as > CSV; it's not currently easy or obvious to appropriately bring in the parent >

Re: [talk-au] Victorian Vicmap Address Import Proposal

21, at 2:05 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > On this, I'm not sure if this may be an OSMAND problem, or an issue with the > way the info has been loaded in OSM, but here's something that I noticed a > few weeks ago, that may apply here? > > Had to go visit a bloke for the first time, & his

Re: [talk-au] Victorian Vicmap Address Import Proposal

On Fri, 21 May 2021, at 4:48 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > With regard to postcodes how does it work when there are 2 postcodes out of > the same mail centre? > > EG Gold Coast Mail Centre at Bundall is postcode 4217, but the GC City > Council, which is in that area, has its own postcode

Re: [talk-au] Question about importing Victoria street addresses

Just a heads up that I'm working on a Vicmap Address import proposal and I should have something ready to bring to the community next week. On Thu, 13 May 2021, 5:48 pm Yuchen Pei, wrote: > Hello, > > I've been using OSM for a while now, but am new to contributing so > not familiar with how

Re: [talk-au] Tagging Asset ID's (bridges as a priority)

Other replies already alluded to this, but the bridge is often mapped as an area like at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/604254012 with man_made=bridge. This allows you to tag all the attributes of the bridge distinct from the road way which crosses the bridge. eg. name=* and ref=*. On the main

Re: [talk-au] Emergency services u-turn connections on freeways

On Mon, 8 Mar 2021 at 15:36, Brendan Barnes wrote: > Hi all, > > When looking at Hume Freeway data lately, I notice a number of the sealed > links between the two carriageways are tagged as highway=motorway_link. Eg > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/728917504/history. > > Reading the wiki,

Re: [talk-au] Oz Data Catalogue

Great idea, then we can have an auto generated table of contents to make it easier to go straight to the state you're interested in. On Sat, 20 Feb 2021 at 12:57, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > Have just had a waiver come through to make use of a Qld Health dataset re > hospitals :-), so was about

Re: [talk-au] Fwd: OSM Search results return strange stuff for Victoria.

On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 at 10:19, cleary wrote: > I was told that the correct tag for places such as towns or suburbs is > postal_code=* whereas the addr:postcode tag is for individual locations. > > However, even with that tag on the suburb boundary, Nominatim is getting > it wrong, particularly

Re: [talk-au] ACT Local Government Areas - Are there any?

To add to what Phil said, the ACT Government handles the services that typical local governments provide through City Services https://www.cityservices.act.gov.au/, which is just a department within the ACT Government. So you can either think of ACT as one big LGA, or doesn't have LGAs. I'm not

Re: [talk-au] Many Sydney residential roads have incorrect surface of paved

Yes exactly as Mateusz said, asphalt is a subtype of paved, if the surface is asphalt and there is no surface tag yet, then it's correct to map it as surface=paved (if you know it's paved but can't tell specifically which type of paved surface it is), then someone else can come along and improve

Re: [talk-au] Tagging Culverts on Roads

I can see an argument for mapping culverts similar to highway=ford because the single culvert structure can be considered both part of the road way and water way, and generally one real world feature should be one object in OSM. However, there are some tags that would be context relevant, eg.

Re: [talk-au] Naming Ramps in Australia

On Tue, 17 Nov 2020 at 00:04, Aleksandar Matejevic (E-Search) via Talk-au < talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > Hi all, > I have noticed that the majority of ramps in Australia tend to have > descriptive names and that naming format/system is not unique. Also, it is > 50-50 between named and

Re: [talk-au] Abbreviations in bus stop names (Was Re: Mapping Transport for NSW transit stop numbers)

abbreviated, with the expectation that eventually they'll become expanded. On Fri, 13 Nov 2020 at 16:20, Andrew Davidson wrote: > On 10/11/2020 9:08 am, Andrew Harvey wrote: > > There was some work going on at > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/TfNSW_Data_Imports which I don't

Re: [talk-au] Mapping Transport for NSW transit stop numbers

On Tue, 10 Nov 2020 at 08:11, cleary wrote: > > Yes, I and others have used ref=* and it seems OK. Example: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6763249794 However I have also > seen others use local_ref=* as at > https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2877506734 I agree, the stop number

Re: [talk-au] Mapping each lane as a new way

On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 at 07:32, Nemanja Bracko (E-Search) via Talk-au < talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > > > My team has recognized that there are a couple of users who are repeatedly > making questionable modeling choices. > > We’ve contacted them, and while some specific

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >